Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the description wisely spends its space elsewhere: it discloses that a call consumes one trial-quota unit and adds an interpretive caveat that GEO/AEO rankings measure technical readiness, not brand or content quality. It also sketches the return shape (rank, value, rank change), which annotations cannot express.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and metrics, then caveats and cost — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The parenthetical metric list is dense but each item earns its place by mapping to an enum value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only ranking tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is returned, what the rankings mean, the quota cost, and the category-only shortcut. Remaining gaps are minor: no note on result size or whether all categories can be compared in one call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%, and the description's main contribution is glossing the English `ranking` enum values in Korean metric terms, which genuinely helps enum selection. It clarifies `category` behavior only partially (the schema already says empty means all), and the `agent` parameter is never mentioned in the description despite carrying a quota-increase incentive in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb-and-resource statement ('업종 랭킹 ... 을 순위 · 값 · 순위 변동과 함께 돌려줍니다') and enumerates the seven ranking metrics covered, which maps directly to the `ranking` enum. It never names a sibling such as get_industry_brief or get_geo_readiness, so the boundary with adjacent tools is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'category 만 주면 그 업종의 순위 요약입니다' tells the agent how to get an industry-level summary versus per-metric rankings, and the quota note warns of a cost. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against overlapping siblings like get_industry_brief or get_geo_readiness.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.